A Self Portrait by Marc Quinn

1. health
   October 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

   Both he and his art strike me with an overwhelming sense of douchebaggery.

2. PacRim Jim
   October 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

   Now art must be tested for AIDS.
   Those capable of creating graphic art, do. Those who can't, try to shock.

3. namowal
   October 11th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

   That's nasty.
   Then again, of the four bodily humors available, blood is the least disgusting.

4. D.D.
   October 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

   I guess you have to keep it in the freezer. It might be good for people on diets. Just set it next to the ice cream.

5. Finagle
   October 11th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

   If this is a scultpure, I wonder why the artist chose to make it look so much like a prosthetic head made from a latex casting? Does a making a prosthetic head from a latex casting count as sculpture?

6. SenorMysterioso
   October 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

   Yes Fin, it does

   This would make a delicious shave ice mmmm

7. SenorMysterioso
   October 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

   I wonder how much blood it would take to do a full body cast

8. Scotty A
   October 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

   ahh.. didn't Damien Hirst do this first?

9. LisaL
   October 11th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

   #1, Oh you hit the nail on the head

10. pumblechook
    October 11th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    I think this is really neat. A bit grotesque, but a very cool concept. If you've ever been to the MoMA, or the Tate Modern, you know that there is *so much* weirder stuff out there.

11. Johnny Cat
    October 11th, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    I actually like the frozen botanical garden best. No douchebaggery present there, no sir.

12. Henry
    October 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    Well, I don't see any "Douchebaggery" here. This isn't like other modern art that ANYONE can do. Normally I hate modern art, for that reason, because I could do it if I wanted to. But, I couldn't draw my blood over months, and I couldn't make a cast of my own head. I don't have the time, or money, and I certainly don't want my blood drawn more than I have to.

    I do like the color of blood, being a nice dark red and all, and it's nice. Nobody's trying to push some deep meaning.

13. Jill
    October 11th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    It's sick, and probably the product of a sick mind. Why does Neatorama subject us to things like this ?

14. Cola
    October 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    *sigh*

15. zavatone
    October 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    Must outweird the other guy so I can be teh avantdarest arteest EVAR!

    What a clown.

16. zavatone
    October 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Zav, check your spellingk before posting please.

17. Joe
    October 11th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    "Those capable of creating graphic art, do. Those who can’t, try to shock."

    Amen, brother. This stuff is one of the reasons I started to call myself an illustrator, which traditionally has been kind of a slur in the fine arts world. I classify myself this way in large part to signify that I am a craftsman as well as an artist. You can't fake it if you call yourself an illustrator, and that gives me great comfort.

    Just to be clear, I think it's fine that people do this conceptual stuff if they really want to, but a lot of it, I feel, has an "Emperor's New Clothes" aspect, because anything can be called "art." Some of it can be very clever, and sometimes I enjoy it, but I'd rather stuff like this were called something else, like "shock pop entertainment."

    Anyways, I'll be glad when this thing is gone from the front page. There's too much ugliness and gore in the world already.

18. SenorMysterioso
    October 11th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    doesnt seem all that ugly or gory to me

19. pumblechook
    October 11th, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    Honestly, if you guys think this is so weird, check out this guy...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Beuys#Artworks_and_performances

    He has installations in the Tate Modern and the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan.

20. heather
    October 12th, 2009 at 12:24 am

    That's not creepy or disturbing at ALL o.0

21. Key
    October 12th, 2009 at 12:29 am

    I really don't see how people are shocked by this.

22. Joe
    October 12th, 2009 at 1:28 am

    ^
    Well, you don't have to be shocked by it not to be into it. Maybe "repulsed" is a more accurate word than shocked. I mean, roadkill doesn't shock me, but it still repulses (and saddens) me.

    For perspective, I actually graduated from and now teach at what is often considered to be one of the two most liberal art schools in the United States, so it is pretty hard to shock me with this sort of stuff.

    I just don't enjoy it and don't really consider it art so much as I consider it spectacle or gimmick. Since everything can now be called art, there's no stopping calling this art as well. I can point to some dog poo and say "that's art" and it is so, just by my identifying it as such. I don't fight this - it's just the way things are now.

    People have every right to make and enjoy this type of thing, and I have every right to think it's gimmicky stuff for hipsters.

    I dare you to lick it.

23. Tim Giachetti
    October 12th, 2009 at 1:45 am

    Ummmm, I'm having an out of body "WTF" moment.

24. BikerRay
    October 12th, 2009 at 6:31 am

    If an average person did this, they'd lock him in a rubber room. If you have a reputation, you get to make money from a gallery.
    Anyway, it's missing the big Popsicle stick in the bottom.

25. JimRL
    October 12th, 2009 at 7:53 am

    I saw this about five years ago in London in the Saatchi Gallery.

    Sits in very cool (excuse the pun) silver freezer!

26. ted
    October 12th, 2009 at 7:57 am

    Joe, LOL. I don't think I'd want my tongue stuck to THAT.

    This is really more making a cast of his face and then using an unusual medium to cast it. His blood would probably have been more useful if he had donated it to a blood bank, rather than wasting it on this "shock" piece.

27. SenorMysterioso
    October 12th, 2009 at 9:42 am

    Why does blood repulse you?

28. Lady Helena Handbasket
    October 12th, 2009 at 9:56 am

    I'm much more weirded out by some of the responses to this than I am by the object itself. I think it is striking and oddly beautiful and very thought-provoking. There is no doubt in my mind that it is art. It is not dog poo, as in Joe's analogy. It is the deliberate, original and unique creation of a human artist. It is even figurative for heaven's sake! If this were exhibited anywhere near me I would make a trip to go and see it.

29. Mitch
    October 12th, 2009 at 10:18 am

    Why waste blood donating it when you can make cool sculptures out of it?

    It's far less than an ideal medium for sculpting, it has
    more value for other purposes, and it requires energy
    to keep it frozen, but it's SO conceptual!

30. Frau
    October 12th, 2009 at 11:58 am

    Oh I see. I do a cast of my face and recreate it in gelatin and it is boring and ho-hum. But If I were to do it in my own blood - then it becomes "art".

31. Melissa
    October 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    I thought, "Wow. That's cool looking! I love the ice effect!", then I saw that it was actually frozen blood. Yuck! Still cool looking, but totally icky.

32. Joe
    October 12th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    "Oh I see. I do a cast of my face and recreate it in gelatin and it is boring and ho-hum. But If I were to do it in my own blood – then it becomes “art”.

    Bingo. People do this at my school all the time (make casts of faces). I've done it. They are sometimes hung up and down a hallway. We just didn't do it with blood, so obviously nobody cares. It could look the same but nobody would care. That's why it's more a concept or gimmick than it is art. I'm not saying there's nothing interesting about it, even though I don't care for it.

    As for the dog poo comment I made, it certainly is relevant, because the fact that one can point at dog poo and say, "this is now art" changes the ENTIRE art game, and short-circuits any discussion about what is and what is not art, which was my point.

    "Why does blood repulse you?"

    This question is incredibly easy to answer. Blood repulses most people due to evolution. Throughout the history of living things, blood meant this:

    1. You are injured, you may be dying, this is very bad and you must do something immediately.
    2. Your friend/family member is injured or dying, or dead. This is bad. Action may be required.
    3. This substance carries disease/bacteria/maggots. If it is not the blood of a freshly killed animal, it is almost certainly a dangerous substance to be avoided. Even if it is the blood of a freshly killed animal or human, it may carry disease.

    It boils down to killing/war/injury/sickness/death. The repulsion or discomfort is triggered when we see this because those who did not feel any repulsion or discomfort from blood have had their DNA vanish from the gene pool because they died before they were able to reproduce.

33. SenorMysterioso
    October 12th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    What I was asked "Why does blood repulse you?" not what is your theory about why you think blood is repulsive to most people but I assume I can apply all those reasons to you personally

34. ted
    October 13th, 2009 at 6:39 am

    I just thought it wasn't artistic because it's really not that appealing to look at. It's not so much the blood as it is just the look on his face. If he's going to be tracking the aging process, he should have started about 20 years earlier, because this already looks pretty decrepit.

    I wouldn't bother making the trip to see this. I just saw the essence of it on Neatorama.

35. Muggs
    October 13th, 2009 at 6:50 am

    Is the idea of a portrait mask in frozen blood taken from a recent novel? Or vice versa? See Lauren Kelly's (pseud. of Joyce Carol Oates) 2009 novel Blood Mask http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Mask-Suspense-Lauren-Kelly/dp/0061119032

36. samlive the red
    October 13th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    what is with the conceptual art haters on neatorama??

    why cant you just say, "hey i'm not into it." and move on, instead of attempting to bash on something you really dont understand?

    conceptual art is about the theory, the concept. its new, is weird, sometimes it sucks, but the very fact that there are 35+ comments on this post means that it was indeed successful.

    why cant we have an insightful, intelligent conversation about the merits of the work instead of bashing on art as a whole? i am of the mind that anything can be art, all it takes is intention. if i point to dog poo and say its art, its art, and i think thats fantastic! everyone can do it and thats what makes it wonderful to me! we're all artists! we're all creators and we're all learning new and unique ways to create our reality.

37. Miss Curly
    October 15th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    OH.MY.GOD.

38. Philippa
    October 19th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    I think people need to find out a bit more about the artist before they jump to conclusions about why he made it... It's more than just for shock.
    Also why can't art be for entertainment, why can it be ridiculous or gimmicky? In then end, it's only art. Let's get over modernism already.

39. Vochilleot
    November 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    "Those capable of creating graphic art, do. Those who can't, try to shock."
    That has to be the dumbest thing anyone has ever said. Graphic art is by far the easiest of art forms.. it takes no talent to make a digital painting, and only about an hour to learn any of the techniques graphic artists use.. i used to be a graphic artist before i realized just how dumb of a profession it was,
    now im fine with using digital paintings as a concept art, something to be turned into an ACTUAL painting, but graphic design is not art. (this does not include photographs (but not all photographs are art either))

    This guy has fantastic concepts, and while creepy and a waste of time, hes very creative. id have alot more respect for him if he actually carved his face into the mold rather than just sticking it in there.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT